Ashton Forbes Over Unity Challenge

[EEVblog]

Yeah, in a sense, ignoring them is the "worst reward": let their frustration speak for not being recognized and heard until they eventually shoot themselves in the foot. The strategy is to not confront them on logic but emotional grounds, so in this case by completely ignoring them. It's the only language (read: mode) they "understand" (I shall say "are receptive").

Ashton's dummy spit when he thought he had Electroboom on the hook for a few weeks, but then when Mehdi shot him down in flames it was hillarious 

[Haenk]

The strategy is to not confront them on logic but emotional grounds, so in this case by completely ignoring them.

You simply cannot convince a believer being "wrong". However ignoring him is a problem either, because there are many people around that *might* believe him, because they don't know any better. Attacking him in public might even get some people to donate to him, for his "fight against ignorant established engineers" 
So "hard facts" might be the better strategy, as the facts will stand the test of time, while voodoo nonsense will likely (hopefully) fail at some time.

[VinzC]

So "hard facts" might be the better strategy, as the facts will stand the test of time, while voodoo nonsense will likely (hopefully) fail at some time.

I disagree as to the alleged effect of hard facts. You rightfully said yourself this is clearly "beliefs" against "reality", in which facts or reality are just being totally ignored. For short, you cannot make someone aware of their biases if they are already persuaded it doesn't apply to them since they would need to be already aware of their own biases to admit they have any, which itself is a (well-known BTW) paradox.

Take flat earthers, for instance. The factual nature of what's at stake still is debated despite the hard nature of facts. Likewise, some belief systems are known to resist time, e.g. ancestral "medicine" in some countries, which have long been refuted by science. Homeopathy is also one of the hardest factual stance of science, in that "there has never been any confirmation of any of those claims". Regardless, it doesn't deter "believers" even though it's been debunked for almost 200 years.

You can't fight beliefs with facts — it's what science educators do and it doesn't make people who are already strongly convinced change their mind anyways. It's already too late. Those cases are lost for as long as they live unfortunately. What counts is to prevent the phenomenon from getting worse and amplified by the pervasiveness of communication media, which completely overwhelm official education channels. You can only act *before* beliefs even have a chance to step in and take over critical thinking. And that means continuous guidance¹ from birth to the educational system, all along the life of every single individual.

How? Better education towards elementary psychology, social sciences, human relationships and behaviour, critical thinking... those sorts of stuff².

¹ I really mean "guidance" not "conditioning".
² Knowing that even then, it's not a guarantee of success...

[IanB]

Take flat earthers, for instance.

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

[Haenk]

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

Never misunderestimate the stoopidness of people. Cultivating a hoax requires a higher level of intelligence, and that's not where you find most of the flat earthers - proof: Just watch some flat earth videos.

[magic]

Some of them are probably trolls, but there are bound to exist idiots who will believe the trolls...

[langwadt]

Take flat earthers, for instance.

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[thm_w]

The term which they really mean is over-unity and/or perpetual motion. In this case Ashton literally uses the term over-uniy and has said that once set in motion his machine will run a load like the computer continuously forever.

The real problem with over-unity is that even the tiniest amount of over-unity can be scaled up to infinite over-unity by compounding. But nobody ever demonstrates that. Forget running a computer. Make a machine that can produce megawatts. But, of course, there will always be excuses why they cannot do that.

No one demonstrates over-unity to begin with, regardless of scaling.
Scaling is a completely separate issue, and there are plenty of things that are difficult to scale and have never been scaled in terms of technology. Nuclear fusion is a classic example.

[VinzC]

Take flat earthers, for instance.

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

As Haenk said: don't underestimate human stupidity. Although what you said is plausible, it doesn't resist Occam's razor as that theory raises more questions than it solves, e.g. with what purpose? organised by whom? when did that... movement part from historical precedents which were due to true believers of flat Earth? (the list could go on). Not to say that you are wrong but I believe stupidity has a much higher level of probability in this case. See also Hanlon's razor: don't lookup in malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

[tszaboo]

Take flat earthers, for instance.

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

I don't think so. There is an enormous urge for belonging in human beings, and it overwrites basic logic and reasoning, and there is a pattern over entire history of mankind. Its sometimes very destructive, sometimes tame.
Some will go to church, and believe that people walked on water.
Some will believe in flat Earth.
Some will spend their entire life on darkweb because the man will get ya.
Some will paint their hair blue and shout from the top of their lung nonsense contradicting basic biology, and try to cancel you on reddit and take over education systems.
Some will tell you that their sports team is the best on the world.
And some will spend their entire life placing magnets in circles because for sure in one orientation it will spin forever.

It's all about the group, distorted reality, and collective hysteria. Basically a group of people are incapable of rational though the same way as an isolated person is.

[SiliconWizard]

Take flat earthers, for instance.

I continue to believe that that flat earth movement is a giant hoax. People pretend to believe the Earth is flat to get a rise out of the people who waste time and energy trying to debunk them. All the while they are laughing behind their back at the gullible fools who believe they are sincere.

Probably a fraction of them these days, especially the more vocal ones, fall into this category.

But the movement is nothing new and the "Flat Earth Society" dates back to the 50's. It may still be a giant, long-standing hoax, but to me it looks more like some kind of sect, like many others.
Of course, nowadays, with internet and social media, many people are "gravitating" around this idea while having no link to the FES whatsoever, but I wouldn't discard the sectarian nature of it all.

[Nominal Animal]

Basically a group of people are incapable of rational though the same way as an isolated person is.

Much less so, for the reasons you listed – which can be summarized as social pressure.

An isolated person is much more likely to engage in rational thought.  When interacting in a group, a lot of mental effort goes into processing social cues and such, including predicting the reaction of the rest of the crowd.  (I'm sure some can do both at the same time, although I definitely cannot.)

There is an apt saying in Finnish: Joukossa tyhmyys tiivistyy (lit., "stupidity condenses in a crowd").

[IanB]

Social pressure within a group is not to be underestimated.

Yesterday I watched a summary of a reality show where a group of people were stranded on a desert island with no food or water, and only a few basic tools like a knife and some string.

One group was a group of men, and one group was a group of women.

The men treated it like a vacation. They quickly elected a leader, made a fire, got drinking water, hunted for food, and had male bonding sessions around the campfire.

The women fought and squabbled, complained at each other, and rapidly descended into thirst and starvation. They had a survival expert in their group, who they ignored, because they didn't like the idea of having a leader telling them what to do (i.e. telling them how to survive). They wanted to make all decisions collectively, even if it would result in sickness and death.

Peer pressure can be a terrible thing.

[langwadt]

Social pressure within a group is not to be underestimated.

Yesterday I watched a summary of a reality show where a group of people were stranded on a desert island with no food or water, and only a few basic tools like a knife and some string.

One group was a group of men, and one group was a group of women.

The men treated it like a vacation. They quickly elected a leader, made a fire, got drinking water, hunted for food, and had male bonding sessions around the campfire.

The women fought and squabbled, complained at each other, and rapidly descended into thirst and starvation. They had a survival expert in their group, who they ignored, because they didn't like the idea of having a leader telling them what to do (i.e. telling them how to survive). They wanted to make all decisions collectively, even if it would result in sickness and death.

Peer pressure can be a terrible thing.

those reality shows also have knack for finding the most inept women who biggest skill is how they look in a bikini,.. gotta get those viewers

[Xena E]

An isolated person is much more likely to engage in rational thought.  When interacting in a group, a lot of mental effort goes into processing social cues and such, including predicting the reaction of the rest of the crowd.  (I'm sure some can do both at the same time, although I definitely cannot.)

Yup. Some personality types will endure any amount of inconvenience and humiliation just to belong to the herd, the best way not to have peer pressure is not have any peers!

There is an apt saying in Finnish: Joukossa tyhmyys tiivistyy (lit., "stupidity condenses in a crowd").

Mob reaction is as dangerous as a bad dictatorship...
Just look at the riots in the UK at the moment.

Human beings are the problem species on this planet for sure.

[VinzC]

An isolated person is much more likely to engage in rational thought.

I'm afraid this might be incorrect. All alone or in group, an idiot remains an idiot, unfortunately. This claim is only true if the person in question is already *capable* of rational thinking, which then makes this a circular definition. Being alone or in group has a more prominent impact on *behaviour*, not the thought process; these are different things, not necessarily correlated.

When interacting in a group, a lot of mental effort goes into processing social cues and such [...]

There is a difference between behaviour and thoughts. The social pressure that is debated here is about adopting the group's *behaviour* (for whatever reason). It doesn't necessarily imply the person changing their mind or adopting a different line of thought. At least not immediately. And there's been a couple experiments¹ to show that (I don't have the references though).

¹ One of these experiments was twofold: first a candidate was asked a few questions and presented with multiple choices, from which they picked the right answer. During the second part the candidate was together with a group of people, who, unbeknownst to the candidate, were instructed to give wrong answers, collectively. Progressively the candidate ended up giving the same answers as the group even though they knew the answers were wrong. Later experiments showed this influence from the group is much less prominent as the number of candidates increases and beyond a given ratio, the group even ceases to have any influence at all.

[Circlotron]

Yup. Some personality types will endure any amount of inconvenience and humiliation just to belong to the herd,

There was a movie called A Girl Named Sooner, about a girl that was raised by a bootlegging old woman, and mistreated terribly until finally she was made a ward of a childless couple. She had this pet bird that can't fly, and in her efforts to make friends with some of the neighborhood kids she shows them the bird. She puts it down on the ground and eventually all those other kids start throwing stones at it, and the desire to be "part of the herd" is so strong that she too starts throwing stones at it until it finally dies." It's a terrible scene.   

 https://youtu.be/CSztgAfqrVQ?si=4q_idmYPIsjt8YQb&t=1972

[Xena E]

That is awful.

Unfortunately the urge to belong drives atrocities, proven throughout history.

X

[Nominal Animal]

Being alone or in group has a more prominent impact on *behaviour*, not the thought process; these are different things, not necessarily correlated.

The effect of group membership to individual thought processes is called groupthink.

How strongly thought processes and behaviour are correlated, is a topic in psychology, and I'm not an expert.  What I do know is that cognitive behavioural psychotherapy uses the connection between the two to improve emotional regulation and coping strategies with many mental health conditions, quite effectively in my own personal case.  Because of that and the related research I've read, I do believe thought processes or cognition in general and behaviour are tightly coupled (so much so that it has been proven statistically that forcing a specific behaviour will slowly change the related thought processes given sufficient repetition), but again, not an expert.

The social pressure that is debated here is about adopting the group's *behaviour* (for whatever reason). It doesn't necessarily imply the person changing their mind or adopting a different line of thought. At least not immediately.

Sure, but we're talking in statistical terms here: what typically happens.

I know how to understand and empathise people I do not agree with.  I practice that quite often, because I like to try and find out the reasons for different opinions and beliefs, by reading and listening to what all kinds of people have to say – including some conspiracy theorists and political pundits.  I am often quite sympathetic, too, although I will not tolerate exploitation of others or unfairness.  I participate in such a group, but do not adopt or belong to the group, if that makes sense.  So, sure, one isn't Borg-ified by just blending in with some group.

Yet, pick any random group, and check how many only participate, and how many adopt/belong/follow the group body and mind.  My current opinion based on observations and discussions with others and their observations, is that majority follows the group body and mind.

The size of the group is a very interesting factor.  I suspect Dunbar number is key here.  It would imply that when group size exceeds 250, its influence on each individual starts statistically decreasing.  One exception is a mob that consists of many separate groups with similar purposes/aims/behaviour.


To tie this groupthink strand back to the original topic, Ashton Forbes Over Unity Challenge, I wonder how much of it is due to the groupthink of online communities?

(You could equally call it say an echo chamber effect.  I don't think it is by intentional design – definitely not a conspiracy! –, but appears because the algorithms are designed to keep people happy and avoid conflicts engaged at minimal moderation cost.  Yet, to me, the long-term effect on those participating seems to be the opposite: drives people towards groupthink and simplified worldview, and reduces the interactions between people who have differing opinions and experiences and worldviews.  I think that acts as a volume booster for goofballs like over-unity "enthusiasts", and "catches" people who would otherwise not be as easily caught by such ideas.)

[tszaboo]

To tie this groupthink strand back to the original topic, Ashton Forbes Over Unity Challenge, I wonder how much of it is due to the groupthink of online communities?

Not necessarily online. I was a student, a high school teacher gifted me a book, called "Forbidden inventions" that I subsequently read. In sure she had the best intentions she tried to give me something that I was interested in, physics.  It was a book about perpetuum mobiles, and it was discussing it like a serious topic. And how big oil destroys these inventions for profit.

[Electrodynamic]

Nominal Animal

The effect of group membership to individual thought processes is called groupthink.

How strongly thought processes and behaviour are correlated, is a topic in psychology, and I'm not an expert.  What I do know is that cognitive behavioural psychotherapy uses the connection between the two to improve emotional regulation and coping strategies with many mental health conditions, quite effectively in my own personal case.  Because of that and the related research I've read, I do believe thought processes or cognition in general and behaviour are tightly coupled (so much so that it has been proven statistically that forcing a specific behaviour will slowly change the related thought processes given sufficient repetition), but again, not an expert.

As one Nobel winning physicist whose name I cannot seem to remember once implied, beliefs are a wonderful thing but not when designing airplanes. Beliefs are what tends to get people killed in science and engineering.

However the problem is much more complex than we think,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201007/why-changing-somebody-s-mind-or-yours-is-hard-do

Here is a good example, if we had a migraine headache a doctor could give us an approved medication or a placebo and the chances are they could have a similar effect psychologically. However if our legs had to be amputated believing we could walk has no bearing in reality because we couldn't as a fact. This is why beliefs have no place in science and engineering only demonstrable facts.

I think I'm pretty open minded but when I hear the term "overunity" I think crackpot. Free energy is okay because in the rest of the universe, so far as we know, there is no associated cost relating to energy. The term "cost" and "money" was invented by us on Earth but we have no evidence to suggest this applies to any other place in the universe. Of course, energy is always conserved, but this has nothing to do with free or cost relating to a currency.

I found it's best not to judge anyone to harshly and when someone claims something based on a belief then simply ask them for proof. Either they have it or they do not and demonstrable proof speaks for itself.

[Nominal Animal]

I think I'm pretty open minded but when I hear the term "overunity" I think crackpot.

I'm split between "crackpot" and "does not understand physics at all".

There are people who believe simply because they do not know any better yet.  I'm fine with them, and love to try and help them learn if possible.

Then there are the crackpots who refuse to learn, because their belief is enough.  These are difficult to deal with.  I'd love to leave them alone, but I hate them leading others astray.

[VinzC]

[...] Then there are the crackpots who refuse to learn, because their belief is enough.  [...]

FTR I believe there's a name for that: obscurantism.

[EEVblog]

I think I'm pretty open minded but when I hear the term "overunity" I think crackpot.

I'm split between "crackpot" and "does not understand physics at all".
There are people who believe simply because they do not know any better yet.  I'm fine with them, and love to try and help them learn if possible.
Then there are the crackpots who refuse to learn, because their belief is enough.  These are difficult to deal with.  I'd love to leave them alone, but I hate them leading others astray.

I very sure this guy is a true believer in "alternative physics". Regular physics explainations do not interst him.

[Xena E]

Although I'm convinced that there is a race to the bottom for educational standards, (at least in the UK!) Why hasn't the likes of this guy, flat earthers, foo believers, etc., questioned why their particular delusion is not being investigated and adopted within mainstream science?

What I mean by that is, what is the cause of their cognative 'blind spot'.

That of course excludes the ones that are champions of this crap for fraud and extortion.

Regards
X.